Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

chrb writes "BBC News and the Telegraph are reporting that the British government has pressured the US government to take down privately hosted extremist web sites and videos, particularly on YouTube. The request follows the conviction of a 21-year-old woman who attempted to murder MP Stephen Timms after watching YouTube videos of radical American Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. YouTube hosts more than 5,000 videos featuring al-Awlaki, but has begun to remove them following the British government's complaints. The issue obviously raises First Amendment issues in the US, but Security minister Baroness Neville-Jones has said 'Those websites would categorically not be allowed in the UK. They incite cold-blooded murder and as such are surely contrary to the public good. If they were hosted in the UK then we would take them down but this is a global problem. Many of these websites are hosted in America and we look forward to working even more closely with you to take down this hateful material.'"

This will be a nonstarter. The US government isn't going to start attacking "hate websites" or otherwise poop on the first amendment. Companies like Youtube will certainly comply with the British government. Net result: such content won't be on the most popular avenues of the net, but it'll still be out there for those who are "interested" in such things. So you and I won't be able to browse to it on google video, but it'll be hosted on, I dunno, hatetube or something.

Oh, of course. I didn't know they could just interpret the constitution as they like. I don't recall seeing that wording in there...

# Obscenity# Fighting words

Wow, yeah. Obscenity. As defined by who? What if someone finds the word "the" obscene? Does that not count because others would deem it 'silly'? The only opinions that count are those of the majority or a few judges? Such a great idea!

Obviously, you are unfamiliar with the case of Miller v California, which laid down the rules for obscenity. And, for the record, the Supreme Court CAN interpret the constitution as they like.

To qualify as obscenity, it has to meet all three of the following requirements: it has to, by the standards of the community, appeal to the prurient interest; it must depict patently offensive sexual behavior; it must lack any and all artistic and scientific value.

You cannot have perfectly objective, hard and fast rules for everything.

In this instance, you can:
Nothing is outlawed because it is "obscene".
If you don't like something, don't look at it. If someone is forcing you to watch, that's different - but the availability of something shouldn't be denied because some people don't like it. (Note: that works for drugs too)

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Unless you'd care to argue that a court charged with applying the Constitution to all cases before it somehow precludes the court from interpreting the laws as written and applying them to the case under review?

Actually, that was an open question for quite some time after the Constitution was adopted.

However, Madison v Marbury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison) definitely settled this dispute, in that the US Constitution is considered the highest law, and the Supreme Court the final arbiter of that law, with the power to declare void any such law which conflicts with the Constitution. The Supremacy Clause (Art VI, Section 1, Clause 2) has also been interpreted to give the Constitution (and thus f

"stating hearsay" is not necessarily libel, and "acting" on it has nothing to do with it whatsoever.

Libel or defamation is me, saying "countertrolling diddles 5 year old boys. He also has a 500 dollar a day coke habit, and loves snorting meth off the hairy buttocks of his gay lovers."

Has nothing to do with whether or not anybody believes it, has everything to do with whether or not it's true (if it's true, I"m simply reporting a fact - if it's not, I'm defaming you). Does freedom of speech run that far?

Of course.. there's nothing stopping the US from punching more holes in the 1st amendment for the sake of global 'community cohesion.' I believe that's the british newspeak term for justifying censorship of expression.

Actually, all speech is protected. There are no exceptions in the constitution. It's quite specific:

Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech

See? "NO law." There you go. Not "some laws when we don't like speech", but NO LAW.

What you have done here is confuse the illicit, usurped power to attack speech, which the US government has taken, with the authority to exercise power to attack speech, which has never, ever been extended to the US government by the people.

Also, BTW, the supreme court has no legitimate authority here other than to reject any law that abridges the freedom of speech. Article III authorizes absolutely no power to carve out exceptions; that's limited to article V, and is authorized ONLY to the people.

Explain to me where the First Amendment says it only applies to "people"? It says simply that the Government shall make no law, it doesn't say which entities those laws must or must not be limited to.

By your own strict "as it's written" argument, all laws being passed by the government that restrict speech - any speech, by any entity - are unconstitutional, which means that corporations should also be exempted from any government restriction, as well.

Or, when you said that "all speech is protected, there are no exceptions in the constitution," did you really mean to say, "I think the First Amendment should mean what I want it to mean, in the specific circumstances I think it should apply in?"

Explain to me where the First Amendment says it only applies to "people"?

The entire bill of rights is directed to the people. Almost every one of the amendments in it (including the first, go read it if you doubt me) finds a place to specifically say so when there might be a question.

However, for this situation, there is no doubt. This is because in the case of speech, the subject at hand is a product of a person. Corporations are legal constructs. They don't speak. They don't think. They don't have

The entire bill of rights is directed to the people. Almost every one of the amendments in it (including the first, go read it if you doubt me) finds a place to specifically say so when there might be a question.

And yet, nowhere in the segment you quoted, does it specifically state that Congress may make no law abridging the freedom of *PEOPLE* to speak. And at the same time, *throughout* the Bill of Rights, "the people" are referred to specifically, but not in the clause you cite. Why is that?

(Also, is "the press" a person? Hmm....)

The point is this:

You are 'interpreting' the First Amendment by saying it doesn't apply to corporations just as anybody else is 'interpreting' the First Amendment to say that there are certain types of speech which may reasonably be prohibited. Your interpretation of the "intent as written" is just that: an interpretation, of what you think the framers of the constitution mean.

Now if you can do that... why would you argue that the judicial branch may not?

And yet, nowhere in the segment you quoted, does it specifically state that Congress may make no law abridging the freedom of *PEOPLE* to speak.

That's because only people speak. It's obvious. It's not there for the same reason that a recipe for turtle soup may be constructed as "remove the shell" instead of "remove the turtle's shell." It doesn't refer to corporations because they don't speak. It doesn't refer to the press, because a newspaper isn't a person, either; hence, it takes a separate, specifi

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words:

"Just because a right is not written here doesn't mean it's not protected, and doesn't mean that the government can just take it away without any challenge."

I'll say again: The First Amendment, when declaring that "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech," does not say ANYTHING about what entities that restriction may or may not apply to, though it does specifically call out "the press" (not an individual person) later on, and other references to "the people" are sprinkled liberally throughout the document.

Certainly suggests that they omitted that specific qualifier re: speech for a reason, doesn't it? If you want to read it as written, you must read it as saying that Congress may make no law restricting free speech, period: meaning, no limits on what a corporation may say, no limits on libel, defamation, or any other sort of thing.

If you want to say that "No, well, some speech is disallowed, but only the really bad types," then you must also admit that you are hypocritical in advocating a strict constructionist view of the First Amendment.

"Abridging the freedom of speech" is in no way the same as "regulating speech".

That is utterly ridiculous. To abridge a freedom in the constitutional sense is to exert legislative control over it in any way. The word "abridge" is key here; it means exactly the same today as it did when it was written into the constitution: curtail. To regulate a thing is also to exert legislative control over it, to curtail particular uses of it.

What you haven't considered is the legal definition of "freedom". "Abri

Bullshit. We, unlike most of Europe, have Nazis, and the Klan, and the Panthers, and the NoI, yet I don't see people running around in packs killing those that the above groups don't like, why? Because by having it out in the open it allows their lies to be laid bare in an open and public discussion, instead of letting it fester behind closed doors.

It is the same "hate speech" style bullshit that many are using now to say "Oh, you can't say anything bad about Islam, that's racist!" even though there are

Correct. Using the same logic, the government has no right to imprison anyone, under any circumstances, ever, since such an action would imede their ability to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievance. See:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Did you even read the sentence that you quoted? Lots of restrictions on speech are permitted by it, for example:

Restriction on speech by state laws.

Restriction on speech by city statutes.

Restriction on speech by corporations.

Restriction on speech by individuals.

The constitution does not enumerate your rights, it enumerates the powers of the federal government. The federal government may not abridge free speech, but that doesn't mean that it can't be abridged.

Some of the sites are for designated terrorist entities - it is already illegal to do business with them. (In fact there is a large fine attached.) No 1st Amendment protection in that narrow case, it just isn't enforced worth a damn (hello YouTube and WordPress, I'm looking at you), so maybe British pressure will raise the temperature a little.

Otherwise, no, there probably won't be anything done as lunatics and creeps of all stripes are generally allowed to say whatever the heck they want here in the US. It

Companies like Youtube will certainly comply with the British government. Net result: such content won't be on the most popular avenues of the net, but it'll still be out there for those who are "interested" in such things.

The ultimate net result will be that those videos are hosted in places that won't allow them to be rebutted. At least on youtube there is a comments section - both for text and for video responses as well as the stuff on the right side of the page that youtube automatically associates based on keywords.

It's precisely that sort of isolation from moderating influences that radicalizes people. If anything, the censorship of the videos on the big name sites will reinforce the belief that the videos contain th

"They used to say "the sun never sets on the Brittish [sic] empire". Now there's no empire hance no K in UK. I never did understand the united (what with the troubles and such) part either so it's just as well they did away with that."

It's called the Commonwealth of Nations, which is a free association of independent states, sixteen of which retain the British monarch as the head of state. Read about it some day. The K in Kingdom has no relationship other than historical to the old British Empire, but it is still applicable to the Commonwealth and to all British territories.

I never did understand the united (what with the troubles and such) part either so it's just as well they did away with that.

The United, in United Kingdom, primarily refers to the union of the two once separate kingdoms of England and Scotland. Specifically it refers to the personal union of the crowns of these two kingdoms in one person, or really the replacement of this previous arrangement with something less complicated--Kind of.

Prior to the creation of the UK, a single person (e.g. Charles I) was simply simultaneously the King of Scotland and the King of England. This distinction lead to interesting legal paradoxes and scenarios that only English legal theory could contrive. The best example is in 1640, where Charles I as king of England actually went to war with his other kingdom of Scotland, and when he was eventually forced to make peace (with Scotland) actually traveled to Scotland (while still at war), was formally received as king and arranged a peace treaty and afterwards played a few rounds of golf with the Scottish nobles; and I am not making this up. The creation of the UK was in part an attempt to clean up this kind of dissonance.

The whole theory behind the UK grew in part from Henry VIII's earlier act of establishing himself as the King of Ireland and creating a personal union between the Kingdoms of Ireland and England. (In fact, there are earlier examples of this kind of thing in regard to the Principality of Wales). So the UK always did include the Kingdom of Ireland as well. I don't think that Kingdom exists independently any more though as I'm not sure if there is a Kingdom of Northern Ireland specifically.

Note in all this that though the Kingdom's were united, the actual countries were not (except insofar as a new country was brought into existence using them). Scotland still exists as a separate country from England, even though they still have the same Parliament (kind of) and the same King.

The end result of this long legal and historical process is that the British are very, very, particular about titles, formalities and the legal powers and functions which arise and derive form them. When you hear Anglo-Saxon's discussing who can legally do what and where in these kinds of discussion, it's because of the work of generations of British scholars who gave their lives to try to make sense of the constitutional framework they had inherited. It's also worth noting that for those same reasons, in most other countries these discussions tend to be rather pointless(e.g. In the US, you have Gitmo, and in Ireland you have really no laws at all). The trouble with Anglo-Saxon legal systems is that most Anglo-Saxon societies aren't actually English.

that it's alright for elected officials to protect their positions from being challenged through democratic processes like anything on the internet/media to "protect the social good"?

maybe I'm just a little crazy, but that screams of a corrupt government to me.

To be fair, the elected official in question had his 'position as a living person' challenged by a nutter who came to his constituency office and stabbed him with a knife. He was not "challenged through democratic processes". Over in the UK we have these things called elections to do that. I don't really think that this move is necessarily a good idea, but to say it is corrupt for people to be upset over the case is ridiculous. Also, he is (now) an opposition MP, and is not part of the government.

It wasn't a "him", it was a "her" that stabbed the Member of Parliament. She did it to be a martyr [sic] for islam. This idea was promoted by some American muslim cleric.
It seems America can't control those who wish her harm, or wish to harm anyone else by proxy. I suspect this is the usual "political correctness gone mad".
America - please sort yourself out - even if the terrorist wishing you harm holds a U.S. passport, they still are a terrorist, the trappings of religion make no difference.
Can we comp

This terrorist is not in the US, he is in hiding in Yemen or Afghanistan and there are US warrants for his arrest. He is a US citizen by birth right to a Yemen tribal leader who was residing in Nevada at the time of his birth. He was raised for most of his childhood in the US. There is a trial in abstention currently taking place in Yemen right now attempting to convict this guy (strengthening the charges against him).

My thoughts exactly. I've watched a few interview from a British Muslim guy named Anjem Choudary (mostly arguing with Richard Dawkins over the inherent danger in religion), and I find it enlightening to know just how crazy some people are out there. We're talking the kind of guy that thinks everyone should be converted to Sharia law, forcefully if necessary. Someone who thinks people should be put to death for leaving Islam. It's strange to watch someone debate a topic, when that debate would not even be allowed if he had his way. Also, by banning these people is makes them harder to find for those needing to detain these freaks.

Note that the crusades are ancient history, and we as a people have grown to overcome the barbaric ways still perpetuated by the Islam religion.** Also note that the crusades were provoked by previous attacks from the muslim nations. Yes, that's right. They were NOT unprovoked acts of spreading Christianity, but a retort to constant attacks from the "barbarics" of the time. Don't ignore details to suit your argument because you just look like a fool.** If you still associate modern Christianity to that

Sorry, to disappoint, but the reason I saw those videos was because of Dawkins. I don't like Christians imposing their beliefs any more than Muslims. Atheists don't kill in the name of... well, nothing. There has never been a war to un-convert people. Sure there have been atheist warmongers, though far more religious ones.
I'm talking about people alive right now, not 700 years ago, that think others in the area they just arrived at should die or convert to their ways.

Atheists don't kill in the name of... well, nothing. There has never been a war to un-convert people.

Give it time. Atheism has only gained a large number of adherents within the past few decades. It took christianity ~1,300 years to get as far as the crusades and atheism has already made a start [wikipedia.org] down that road.

Would the Khmer Rouge count as atheists trying to un-convert people? They were communists (therefore atheists) who deliberately wanted their population not to believe in religion but rather Onka (sp? Khmer Rouge govt who although having certain religious traits, IMHO isn't a religion because of the lack of belief of a diety). Buddhist monks were widely persecuted way back in the 70s, more so than the urban population was. I would describe myself as an apathist (don't care) when it comes to religion but I re

You obviously don't know much about WWII, Eugenics, or how it played an important role in the final solution for the jews.

Here's a cliff notes version. Hitler (and no, this isn't godwining anything because it's both key and to the point of the comment in reply while not comparing anyone to hitler or nazis) among others, developed an opinion based around the atheist argument of evolution that involve different races of people evolving differently over different point of history. They saw it as

That's right, most of the horrors of WWII was due to atheist principles.

"There is no god, therefore we must kill people"?

"This is how the different species came about, therefore we must kill people"?

the atheist argument of evolution

[Not believing in the existence of a god] and [believing in what your senses tell you] and [believing only in what your senses tell you] are three distinct things. They tend to overlap in people, but they are different.

Hitler may have conflated them for rhetorical purposes. I don't know, I don't have the primary sources at hand.

I think you really just reinforced the OPs point. Hitler gave a bad name to atheists, not unlike how Crusaders and Al Qaeda gave a bad name to their respective religions. All of their methods were justified by twisted, if plausible, interpretations of their respective philosophies. It's not religion that starts wars; it's ideology. It just so happens that religion has been the dominant ideology for quite some time. Similarly Windows as the dominant OS has helped to spread multitudes of viruses and malw

You find someone with deep pockets associated with the video and sue the hell out of them. Repeat until everyone takes down the video/article/link.

The government can't suppress speech but businesses do it all the time.

I'm sure it's legal free speech. And who ever uploaded it could probably be fined for something. And You Tube could definitely be sued for hosting it after it was a known danger (probably before). Might not win, but they would likely fold under mild pressure for something repugnant like this.

The First Amendment issues are obvious here, but I have to say, we relegare ourselves to a pack of dumb animals if we make the point that watching something or reading something or playing violent video games means we're going to freak out and imitate or otherwise follow the directions of anything contained within.

We are not three year olds. We can watch hateful, obscene, or otherwise nasty crap and we can make the decision not to be a bunch of zombies about it. Unless and until we insist that people think for themselves and be responsible for their actions, (and law should mandate it - meaning, you can't use "I watched a bunch of nasty stuff and it influenced me therefore the crime I committed isn't my fault" argument) we condemn ourselves to a kind of tyranny where government is the adult who steps in and treats us like impressionable toddlers. Freedom is contingent upon critical thinking and personal responsibility, and I am not willing to accept shackles because there are a smattering of idiots among us who are incapable of it.

The logic that we have to stop thoughtcrime because it might spread or influence people is chilling.

The United States needs to ignore the UK's demand, and the UK, if it insists, can certainly petition google to take action on this.

But unless we rely on the idea that free people in a free society can think critically, why not just invite the government into our lives completely? Why even have a free society, if we're really just animals, a few videos away from going on some kind of horrible killing spree? Why go through the pretense of insisting that human beings are capable, through independent thought and taking responsibility for their actions, of liberty?

The "categorically not allowed in the UK" bit could not, as an American, concern me less -- and should the United States attempt the same kind of argument with the UK in the future, the UK can and should ignore the United States's demands to infringe the right of people to say and read/watch what they like.

The alternative, where the government makes this decision that there's just stuff we can't watch, is scary.

we relegare ourselves to a pack of dumb animals if we make the point that watching something or reading something or playing violent video games means we're going to freak out and imitate or otherwise follow the directions of anything contained within.

trouble is, some people do freak out and imitate or otherwise follow this nonsense. In fact, many people do - from TV evangelists and their millions of followers, through ponzi and 'nigerian' scammers, and massmedia-incited mobs, to fanatical nutjobs. That's what I find scary about all this. Its not the nutjbs trying to cash in in some way, it the sheeple who so easily follow the most obviously ludicrous idiocy.

Theonly answer is education, so we improve the quality of all the people's intellectual capacity. Hopefully the number of fools who fall for all of the above will drop then. (though too many of these people will *still* buy iPads:) )

We are not three year olds. We can watch hateful, obscene, or otherwise nasty crap and we can make the decision not to be a bunch of zombies about it. Unless and until we insist that people think for themselves and be responsible for their actions, (and law should mandate it - meaning, you can't use "I watched a bunch of nasty stuff and it influenced me therefore the crime I committed isn't my fault" argument) we condemn ourselves to a kind of tyranny where government is the adult who steps in and treats us like impressionable toddlers. Freedom is contingent upon critical thinking and personal responsibility, and I am not willing to accept shackles because there are a smattering of idiots among us who are incapable of it.

The logic that we have to stop thoughtcrime because it might spread or influence people is chilling.

This is the same argument that was used to allow hate radio to carry on inciting the genocide in Rwanda. The US government and the international community could have insisted on the closure of the radio stations that were cranking out non stop round-the-clock anti-Tutsi propaganda and telling the killers where to go in search of more Tutsis to slaughter, but they didn't because it would have violated their "free speech" principles.

Wake up and smell the coffee, people. You might be an intelligent person, you might be able to listen to propaganda and recognise it for what it is, but that doesn't apply to everyone. You only have to look at the US itself where Fox News now gets major ratings and a significant proportion of the population has actually swallowed the unfounded lie that President Obama is a Muslim.

We live in a world where there are brainwashed, violent extremists who are driven by a hatred of all things western and will stop at nothing to kill civilians in pursuit of Jihad. They are easily influenced by this crap. Wishful thinking about everyone's intelligence is going to get us nowhere, especially in an age when Islamic fundamentalist barbarians could be dangerously close to getting their hands on a nuclear weapon.

It's time to put the "all free speech is wonderful" ideology into a bit of perspective. And as much as I hate to Godwin the thread, there was a certain Austrian dude in the 1930s who was able to make ample use of his right to free speech to great effect. Which was greater, his right to free speech or the right to life of a million Jews? Don't tell me his right to free speech was greater - it wasn't. Pure and simple.

You see here's the difference between US and European attitudes to free speech. In Europe, war actually took place on home turf. Yes WWII claimed a lot of American lives, but the actual combat never reached the continental US, whereas it most certainly reached European soil. WWII casts long shadows, and it's for that reason that Europeans are a bit more tetchy about letting anyone say anything that might incite a mob, because that can lead to the darkest places imaginable. In a world of nuclear weapons and Islamic fundamentalist barbarians who hate our civilisation, I find unfettered freedom of speech a whole lot more scary than a few reasonable curbs on hate speech.

David Cameron (UK prime minister) has let all the rhetoric go to his head. He actually believes it when the US politicians pat him on the head and tell him that the UK and USA do indeed have a special relationship. Wake up, any balance of power between the USA and UK finished sometime before World War 2, over 70 years ago. The "special relationship" deal is that the USA expects the UK to give their requests special treatment (collude in "special renditions", help out on a war, that kind of thing), but don't expect anything in return beyond maybe the occasional tour of the White House and a signed photo from the president.

Fool. The USA isn't going to listen to any UK request any more than the USA expects the UK to refuse any request from them. They'll shout "1776" and "tea party" and ignore whatever is said next.

Fool. The USA isn't going to listen to any UK request any more than the USA expects the UK to refuse any request from them. They'll shout "1776" and "tea party" and ignore whatever is said next.

You're an idiot. The US cannot agree to a UK request that categorically violates the US Constitution. Britain should know better than to ask for such an idiotic thing in the first place.

It's like requesting that the US make Catholicism the official national religion. It's never going to happen, not for any religion (such a thing would violate the Constitution), and it is bizarre to even ask.

Britain should know better than to ask for such an idiotic thing in the first place.

Well, no actually. You're assuming that British people study the US constitution - they don't. Secondly, it is up to the American people to determine how to interpret the US constitution. There is nothing idiotic about that.

If a friend and ally makes a request, you can certainly consider it (before you say no). Constitution or not, quite possibly the specific videos in question might infringe some law or regulation, so there

The US -has- ignored the constitution in recent memory, and got away with it. So clearly they can again. The US gov only listens to money, not the UK. Catholic isn't likely to become a state religion, it's not Protestant. However the Republicans would certainly vote for a state religion if they had the chance. If they can openly support creationist nonsense (intelligent design) and prayers in school then i'd not put official state religion past them.

It's not as one sided as some in the US like to make out - we have had periods of mutual benefit. The fact that we have land here for US air force bases, for example. Or the trade of custom reactor designs for our subs in exchange for acoustic silencing tech that the US didn't have.

The UK may be a physically small country, but it holds a disproportionate amount of power in the EU for its population which makes it politically very potent.

Only the properly ignorant think this is about who has the biggest army

Have you never moved away from your hometown? You have such a narrow world view it is staggering. We indeed have a special relationship with the UK. They are in the same boat as we are fighting against Islamic radicals. They are one of our closest allies. We may not comply with what they request but that would be due to the inability to enact something like that because of our Constitution. We certainly are close partners though and have a lot of cooperation. We are in this with them together.

There's this little thing called treason and it is defined in the constitution as follows: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Alwaki's videos most definitely fit this description and are thus treasonous speech. Treasonous speech is not protected by the constitution. I find it pathetic that any American would support treason against their own country. No wonder the terrorists think they can win.

Frankly, the request from the British government, both to YouTube (and other companies) and to the US Government is all three: reasonable , legal, and likely to happen.

Reasonable in that these videos (and, yes, I went out and looked at a couple, I'm not going to say where), have no redeeming social value. They're strictly (a) war propaganda (b) pure hate speech and (c) active statements of intent to commit violence. None of these characteristics provided any value to our societal discussion of ideas (which is what the 1st Amendment enshrines, but does not define). No one in either the US or the UK needs to see these for any reason other than military intelligence (which, we can get without allowing them to be made for public consumption).

Legal in that according to both UK and US law, these videos fit within the various exceptions to protected speech (that is, they fit into well-defined categories of speech NOT afforded protection). Thus, it's entirely likely that the UK request to the US government will see some sort of follow-through by the US Executive branch, as the content of the videos isn't reasonably up for discussion as to the legality thereof - it's not like they have to be parsed for obscene vs offensive categorization, and I don't see any court ruling in favor of these videos being protected speech (here in the US). It's actually a pretty cut-and-dried case of Incitement to Violence.

Likely as both the above cases point out, it's pretty much a no-brainer request to the US, as it doesn't run afoul of any of our laws, or even likely to produce a court case. In addition, for private providers, its very clear that they violate pretty much any T-O-S I've ever seen for posting public video or images.

Free Speech is great, but there are well-defined (for very good reasons) exceptions to protection, and this stuff very clearly fits inside those exceptions.

But, I do expect the various TLA agencies to continue to listen to al-Awalki - after all, he's giving them plenty of rope to hang himself by.

Reasonable in that these videos (and, yes, I went out and looked at a couple, I'm not going to say where), have no redeeming social value. They're strictly (a) war propaganda (b) pure hate speech and (c) active statements of intent to commit violence.

War propaganda and active statements of intent to commit violence *do* have societal value. Have you forgotten that our country was founded by revolutionaries?

The value of hate speech is less obvious, but it's still clearly covered by the first amendment.

Speech as a whole must be evaluated for content before consideration of its legality. Simply because speech contains some political manifesto or content does NOT ipso facto mean it is (or should be) automatically covered and protected. As a flip side, simply because a picture shows a naked form (let's say a child), does not automatically mean it's obscene (or non-protected). The speech/work must be viewed as a whole.

Please, people, take a look at the original founder's writings. No where in there is there any mention that completely unrestricted speech is a universal good or even desirable. There have always been mentions that some speech is simply worthless, and indeed, harmful to society. Free Speech is not just something to have because it's Free. The purpose of having Free Speech is to encourage an open society of ideas, thus enabling a flexible and free society. If some speech conflicts with this goal, then it should NOT be tolerated. The founders were actually quite explicit in their stated intentions behind promotion of Free Speech - they were after the benefits a much more unfettered exchange can provide, but very much mindful that certain forms of speech caused more harm than any (possible) good.

As an aside, does anyone see Free Speech mentioned in the Declaration of Independence (which, is mostly a document defining the inherent rights of people)? As a real good example of this, take a look at the Declaration of the Rights of Man - it notes the powerful good that Free Speech can provide, but also notes the EXCEPTIONS to which Free Speech must be held.

Am I misreading something? The article says that YouTube has policies to take various videos down, and says that "the British government has pressured the US government to take down privately hosted extremist web sites and videos", but it doesn't actually say that anything has been successfully taken down due to pressure from or legal actions by the US government.

Unlike the Taliban (freedom is a sin as it's an act of hubris and afront to Allah's will), the British Gov doesn't hate freedom. They fear it!!! Their actions and the laws in place make that notion crystal clear.

All governments have a love-hate relationship with freedom. Human livestock is more productive the more freedom you give it, but at the same time with more freedom comes more recognition that the farmers aren't necessary.

Ideally governments want to give their livestock just enough freedom to maximize profits and no more.

I actually agree with a lot of what you say, but you could say the same thing about a lot of Christian fundamentalists (and more in certain times in the past).

The key phrase there is "in the past". Judaism is the oldest of the desert religions, Christianity is a bit younger. They both went through their adolescent hissy fits and used brute force to spread themselves in their day, but eventually they settled down and became pretty docile.

Islam, on the other hand, is the youngest of the three and it's still in the middle of its troubled adolescent years. It still has an inferiority complex and gets very emotional when it's insulted, usually reacting violently. (Danish newspaper cartoons, anyone?)

The danger is that Islam is going through these growing pains in an age when one no longer needs the resources of an army or a king to cause large scale loss of life. This is particularly alarming in the nuclear age.

Also, just like a lot of the "Bible quotes" by some Christian fundamentalists,

eternal life in a harem full of virgins

isn't this one of the many things argued to be a mis-translation?

Could be. Either way it's irrelevant. People read what they want to into scripture. People who are brought up to hate the west (a hatred which seems to be a core subject along with reading, writing and arithmetic in some parts of the world) are going to seize on that and use it as justification for their Jihadist stance no matter how inaccurate the scholarship is.

Glenn Greenwald explains it better than I can, so I'll just quote him:

"It's truly astounding to watch us -- for a full decade -- send fighter jets and drones and bombs and invading forces and teams of torturers and kidnappers to that part of the world, or, as we were doing long before 9/11, to overthrow their governments, prop up their dictators, occupy what they perceive as holy land with our foreign troops, and arm Israel to the teeth, and then act surprised and confused when some of them want to attack us. In general, the U.S. only attacks countries with no capabilities to attack us back in the "homeland" -- at least not with conventional forces. As a result, we have come to believe that any forms of violence we perpetrate on them over there is justifiable and natural, but the Laws of Humanity are instantly breached in the most egregious ways whenever they bring violence back to the U.S., aimed at Americans. It's just impossible to listen to discussions grounded in this warped mentality without being astounded at how irrational it is. What do Americans think is going to happen if we continue to engage in this conduct, in this always-widening "war"?

They hate us because we occupy their lands, kill their families, torture them, lock them up with no chance of ever getting out, and prop up other regimes that do the same. "Our freedoms" are far, far down on the list.

This is the sort of thing that gets on my nerves. I am all for defending freedoms, but freedom must be exercised responsibly.

This is a case where a Member of Parliament -- roughly the counterpart of your Representatives in the US -- was attacked and nearly died, while performing his fundamental constitutional duty to meet a member of his constituency supposedly to hear her concerns. Your President walks around protected by the most high profile private army in the world because of that sort of threat, and t

Unfortunately, your approach allows some very nasty people to literally get away with murder. All they have to do is make sure someone else pulls the trigger and let them take the fall. I don't think such a simplistic approach is compatible with justice in any useful sense of the term.

(a) This is not a black-and-white issue, but the idea that people are completely immune to any external influence and therefore those who attempt to cause results indirectly should not be held at all responsible is crazy to me. Just ask advertisers.

(b) This very nearly was a murder. The MP concerned was seriously injured.

What a stupid statement. They hate us because we station troops on their holy land. They hate us because we interfere with their government. They hate us because we fight made up wars that kill thousands of civilians.

You were probably joking, but I know some people actually still think they hate us because we are free. And it is just so simplistic and dumb. I'd probably not be irritated if you were modded funny instead of Interesting.